I.T.O. WARD - JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) vs. MOHD. ABRAR, RAIGARH(CG)
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the issue was covered by previous ITAT rulings which had allowed relief to the assessee on similar grounds concerning non-deduction of TDS on transportation payments.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,60,14,628/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on transportation payments. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, relying on previous orders of the ITAT for similar issues in prior assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made for non-deduction of TDS on transportation payments, considering previous ITAT decisions on the same issue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 373/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
ITO, Ward-Janjgir Champa, Vs. Mohd Abrar, Prop. Raja Janjgir, Dist: Janjgir, Road Lines, Taraimal, PO: Champa. Gerewani, Ambikapur Road, Raikgarh PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri O.P.Choaudhary, DR
Date of Hearing : 16/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17/01/ 2018
O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-
Bilaspur, dated 21.8.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011.
The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in
deleting the addition of Rs.3,60,14,628/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.
40(a)(ia) of the Act as no TDS was made on payment made for
transportation of consignment goods as required u/s.194C of the I.T.Act,
1961.
3 ITA No. 373/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
On appeal, the CIT(A) considering the facts of the case , submission
of the assessee and the judicial decisions, deleted the addition by observing
as under:
“On careful perusal of material available on record, it is found that similar addition u/s.40(a)(ia) was made by the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 for failure of the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s.194C of the act. The matter was carried to the CIT(A), Bilaspur, who after calling the remand report, allowed relief to the appellant. The revenue opposed the order before the ITAT, Bilaspur Bench, Bilaspur. The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.3,08,44,702/- is fortified by the decision in the case of R.R.Carrying Corporation vs ACIT (2009) 126 TTK (CTK) 240. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced verbatim, hereunder: ‘Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A), who has deleted the addition of Rs.3,08,44,702/-. This view of CIT(A) is fortified by the decision of Cuttack Bench in the case of R.R.Carrying Corporation(supra). Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on the issue. Following the above of the Hon’ble tribunal, addition u/s.40(a)(ia) on same ground was deleted by the CIT(A), Bilaspur for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-2010 vide order In ita No.115/2010-11 dated 28.2.2012 and ITA No.121/2011-12 dated 4.12.2012. The issue of impugned addition for the year under reference is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal order in ITA No.120/BSP/2011 dated 12.2.2012 and hence, addition on this count is found to be unsustainable and ,accordingly it is deleted.”
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before
us.
Before us, ld D.R. submitted that the assessee has not deducted TDS
u/s.194C of the Act and the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition.
5 ITA No. 373/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : ITO, Ward-Janjgir Champa, Janjgir, Dist: Janjgir, Champa 2. The Respondent. Mohd Abrar, Prop. Raja Road Lines, Taraimal, PO: Gerewani, Ambikapur Road, Raikgarh 3. The CIT(A)- Bilaspur 4. Pr.CIT- Bilaspur 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026